WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

I think this is the first time in the Open Era that somebody was #1 for the year on the basis of an AO victory, not paired with any other Slam win.

.

Click to expand...

Lendl 1989 was another occasion. Interesting Note: the only tournament losses that Lendl had the whole of 1989 were to the eventual winners of the tournaments. Don't know if that has ever happened before or since

1989 was an interesting year. Obviusly Becker produced the best standard of tennis that year, and more importantly had the best set of achievements. Thus he was the clear player of the year.

However Lendl's incredibly good day-in day-out consistency that year, meant that he had a pretty strong ranking point lead over Becker at the end of the season. In fact some posters here have shown that even if the ranking systems from the 90s, 2000-2008 or 2009 onwards were used, Lendl still would have had a clear lead in all scenarios.

It's interesting that Edberg in 1990 and Kuerten in 2000 both finished as the year end no. 1 in those respective seasons, despite suffering 1st round defeats at 2 of the majors. Edberg fell at the first hurdle to Bruguera at RG and Volkov in New York in 1990, while Guga suffered the same fate against Portas in Melbourne and Arthurs in New York in 2000.

1989 was an interesting year. Obviusly Becker produced the best standard of tennis that year, and more importantly had the best set of achievements. Thus he was the clear player of the year.

However Lendl's incredibly good day-in day-out consistency that year, meant that he had a pretty strong ranking point lead over Becker at the end of the season. In fact some posters here have shown that even if the ranking systems from the 90s, 2000-2008 or 2009 onwards were used, Lendl still would have had a clear lead in all scenarios.

It's interesting that Edberg in 1990 and Kuerten in 2000 both finished as the year end no. 1 in those respective seasons, despite suffering 1st round defeats at 2 of the majors. Edberg fell at the first hurdle to Bruguera at RG and Volkov in New York in 1990, while Guga suffered the same fate against Portas in Melbourne and Arthurs in New York in 2000.

Click to expand...

This is why it is important to do well not only in points ranking, but in the major tournaments as well. Otherwise, it becomes a less than spectacular year, even if you get the #1 ranking.
Finishing number one is not worth the same in stature every year. Some years are better than others, therefore you cannot simply add up the number of years a player finishes first to rate the player.

So, how many ATP points did Joshua Pim, for example, finish with in the years for which he was ranked number one?

And what about Rod Laver in 1962, the year in which he won the Grand Slam for the first time? (Ken Rosewall is listed as the "world number one" for 1962 in the list on page one of this thread.)

Click to expand...

???????????????????
We all know there was no ATP in 1962 and before, and thus no ATP computer rankings. Back then rankings were compiled by mere human beings with favorites, biases, prejudices, and subjectively poor memories. We now have a better system.

Trabert was never No.1 or in a GOAT discussion. He just was best claycourter in 1956 and 1959. And Dan claims that he had a better backhand than Rosewall...

Click to expand...

Not my claim, but Hoad's in a 1977 Sports Illustrated interview.
He actually said something like, "You hear so much about Ken's great backhand, but I always feared Trabert's more, as the more dangerous shot. I always felt that I could beat Ken, but if I was not playing well he would probably win, as he was the more consistent player."

They all won majors that year, but Hoad won five tournaments just below major rank, and was clearly world number one in December.
The Davis Cup was the premiere event in the game at that time, and ONLY HOAD was offered a pro contract at year's end (the final proof of status).

They all won majors that year, but Hoad won five tournaments just below major rank, and was clearly world number one in December.
The Davis Cup was the premiere event in the game at that time, and ONLY HOAD was offered a pro contract at year's end (the final proof of status).

Not my claim, but Hoad's in a 1977 Sports Illustrated interview.
He actually said something like, "You hear so much about Ken's great backhand, but I always feared Trabert's more, as the more dangerous shot. I always felt that I could beat Ken, but if I was not playing well he would probably win, as he was the more consistent player."

Click to expand...

All (?) other players said that Rosewall had the best backhand after Budge.

There are always different opinions about players and opinions vary. Rosewall had a great backhand, arguably the greatest ever but of course not everyone who played him thought he had the greatest backhand they ever face although it often seemed that way. Trabert had a fabulous backhand and probably one of the all time greatest also but I've never seen it argued as the greatest backhand ever as Rosewall's or Budge's was.

Arthur Ashe's ranked Rosewall's backhand the best along with Rod Laver.

If Hoad said that about Trabert's backhand, that's fine but I'm sure Rosewall's backhand was very important in so many of Rosewall's victories over Hoad.

There are always different opinions about players and opinions vary. Rosewall had a great backhand, arguably the greatest ever but of course not everyone who played him thought he had the greatest backhand they ever face although it often seemed that way. Trabert had a fabulous backhand and probably one of the all time greatest also but I've never seen it argued as the greatest backhand ever as Rosewall's or Budge's was.

Arthur Ashe's ranked Rosewall's backhand the best along with Rod Laver.

If Hoad said that about Trabert's backhand, that's fine but I'm sure Rosewall's backhand was very important in so many of Rosewall's victories over Hoad.

Click to expand...

Thanks, pc1 for your statement. I do know that Trabert's backhand was fantastic but still I would rate Rosewall's and Budge's and Borg's and Laver's and Connors' backhand a bit stronger.

Could it be that Lew did not want to praise Ken's backhand that much because he was his friend and doubles partner to avoid the impression he was biased?

I also rank Kovacs' and Nüsslein's backhand very high and maybe above Trabert's.

If Trabert had the time to set up, as he did on clay, I wonder if perhaps Hoad was right. Hoad certainly played these two guys enough.

Click to expand...

Pancho G. said:" What Rosewall could do with his backhand, Segura could even do better with his forehand" (sorry for my English). This is the ultimate praise for Rosewall's backhand. And also Gonzalez played Trabert and Rosewall very often.

1983 Wilander,e xcept on clay, was below mac´s level.John dominated th two biggest indoor events, which were considered far above the Ao in those days, although Mats win at Melbourne was really impressive.

Mac also took the world´s premiere title, defeating again Lendl in a one sided semifinal.I know Lewis was not a top player, but he played better than the rest and deserved to make it to the final day.

In 1983, John Mc Enroe was the nº 1, and Connors , Wilander and Noah may share the nº 2 position.Maybe with Wilander a bit ahead of the other two.

In the other thread we were talking about how Connors won only 4 official events in 1983, but 9 non-sanctioned events.

That gives him 13 titles of every kind, which puts him past Wilander's official total of 9 titles. Depending on whether Wilander won any non-sanctioned events, it's possible that Connors leads the year with 13 titles of every kind.

He won one Slam event (USO). So did McEnroe (Wimbledon), and so did Wilander (AO).

So if they each had one Slam victory, do Connors' 13 titles put him in the #1 spot for the year?

We usually think of either McEnroe or Wilander as the #1 this year, but we've almost never talked about the non-sanctioned events, and Connors won a ton of them in '83. McEnroe and Lendl each won only 1 non-sanctioned event, and each man won 7 official titles.

Number five? You have a great sense of humour, my friend.
His record against Trabert: 2 and 0
Rosewall: 2 and 0
Need we continue?

Click to expand...

Just to repeat for 1953 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Hoad held a 2 to 0 edge against Trabert and a 5 to 0 edge against Rosewall, won five important tournaments, won two Davis Cup final matches (the most important tennis event of the year), and was the only amateur offered a pro contract by Kramer for the 1954 pro tour.
That looks like number one for the year.

In the other thread we were talking about how Connors won only 4 official events in 1983, but 9 non-sanctioned events.

That gives him 13 titles of every kind, which puts him past Wilander's official total of 9 titles. Depending on whether Wilander won any non-sanctioned events, it's possible that Connors leads the year with 13 titles of every kind.

He won one Slam event (USO). So did McEnroe (Wimbledon), and so did Wilander (AO).

So if they each had one Slam victory, do Connors' 13 titles put him in the #1 spot for the year?

We usually think of either McEnroe or Wilander as the #1 this year, but we've almost never talked about the non-sanctioned events, and Connors won a ton of them in '83. McEnroe and Lendl each won only 1 non-sanctioned event, and each man won 7 official titles.

Mc Enroe wins Wimbledon,WCT and Masters. 3 of the top 6 events in that era.50%.No match, not even closed.

Connors won a great USO title ( only a big name in his path, Lendl, while Teltscher and Scanlon were mere second fiddle) but failed at Wimbledon,Masters and had that ignominous defeat at RG against Vasselyn.

Wilander did far better than Jimmy.He also reached the Masters semi but,besides winning the AO with two great wins over Mac and Lendl, reached the FO final.He also played the DC final.

Jimmy was n1 3 in 1983 and he was nº 3 in 1984.He never got anybetter after his great 1982 season.

Just to repeat for 1953 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Hoad held a 2 to 0 edge against Trabert and a 5 to 0 edge against Rosewall, won five important tournaments, won two Davis Cup final matches (the most important tennis event of the year), and was the only amateur offered a pro contract by Kramer for the 1954 pro tour.
That looks like number one for the year.

Funny Dan, your rankings become strange more and more. You have a selected view on the players' records: You only consider those Hoad results that are positive for your God, pardon GOAT. You neglect totally other players' achievements, especially Rosewall's.

You rank Hoad ahead of Rosewall for all years from 1953 to 1956 even though the facts and experts contradict totally with the exception of 1956!

In 1953 Rosewall won two majors, reached SFs at FH, reached QFs of Wimbledon, won the PSW tournament ("the fifth major") and won the deciding Davis Cup match. No way of ranking him behind Hoad.

In 1954 Rosewall reached the final of Wimbledon (great match against Drobny), reached SFs at the Australian Champs., lost in five and reached SFs of US Champ.s. By the way, Tingay ranked Hoad only seventh...

For 1960 you rank Olmedo fourth!?!? Maybe because he lost 0-6,0-6,3-6 to Rosewall at Wembley? I rank him eighth.

Hoad in 1964 third? It's your masterpiece, of course! Your explanation is very revealing: Because Hoad won a small 4 man tour. Gonzalez and Gimeno were much stronger than Lew that year. Hoad finished sixth in the world tour...

You rank Hoad first or second for most years from 1953 to 1963. It's really funny. Thanks a lot!

Facit: Dan Lobb at his best...

P.S.: Joe McCauley was busy to give a reasonable picture of the pro scene, but you distort his records as you also distort the amateur records, just to push your darling. You and TMF could be a genial double of misinterpreting tennis history!

Just to repeat for 1953 Amateur Rankings:
1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Hoad held a 2 to 0 edge against Trabert and a 5 to 0 edge against Rosewall, won five important tournaments, won two Davis Cup final matches (the most important tennis event of the year), and was the only amateur offered a pro contract by Kramer for the 1954 pro tour.
That looks like number one for the year.

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

Click to expand...

timnz, even as a Nüsslein admirer I would say that Crawford and Perry were stronger than Nüsslein and Tilden that year. But it's hard to decide.

Tilden beat strong von Cramm clearly on clay in 1934. Von Cramm beat Nüsslein the same year in four sets (but Nüsslein was ill by a cold).

I would say that on clay Nüsslein was the strongest in 1933, Crawford on fast surfaces.

Funny Dan, your rankings become strange more and more. You have a selected view on the players' records: You only consider those Hoad results that are positive for your God, pardon GOAT. You neglect totally other players' achievements, especially Rosewall's.

You rank Hoad ahead of Rosewall for all years from 1953 to 1956 even though the facts and experts contradict totally with the exception of 1956!

In 1953 Rosewall won two majors, reached SFs at FH, reached QFs of Wimbledon, won the PSW tournament ("the fifth major") and won the deciding Davis Cup match. No way of ranking him behind Hoad.

In 1954 Rosewall reached the final of Wimbledon (great match against Drobny), reached SFs at the Australian Champs., lost in five and reached SFs of US Champ.s. By the way, Tingay ranked Hoad only seventh...

For 1960 you rank Olmedo fourth!?!? Maybe because he lost 0-6,0-6,3-6 to Rosewall at Wembley? I rank him eighth.

Hoad in 1964 third? It's your masterpiece, of course! Your explanation is very revealing: Because Hoad won a small 4 man tour. Gonzalez and Gimeno were much stronger than Lew that year. Hoad finished sixth in the world tour...

You rank Hoad first or second for most years from 1953 to 1963. It's really funny. Thanks a lot!

Facit: Dan Lobb at his best...

P.S.: Joe McCauley was busy to give a reasonable picture of the pro scene, but you distort his records as you also distort the amateur records, just to push your darling. You and TMF could be a genial double of misinterpreting tennis history!

Click to expand...

Bobby, let's not get carried away again.
Look at hth between Hoad and Rosewall. FIVE TO NOTHING for Hoad in 1953, and Hoad was THE KINGPIN of the Davis Cup final, where Rosewall was clobbered by Trabert (or did you overlook that match?).
TWO TO NOTHING against Trabert in 1953, including the key Davis Cup match, and, as you know, Davis Cup was the NUMBER ONE event in the tennis world.
In 1954, Hoad and Rosewall played a best-of-five sets Eastern Grasscourts final, a straight sets win for Hoad. Look at the results.
It's great that Rosewall reached some final in 1954, but which majors did he win? I do not recall any that year, and HE LOST AT ROLAND GARROS TO DAVIDSON, a player Hoad owned on clay.
Joe McCauley somehow excluded the New Zealand four-man in 1964, the only tour featuring the three great Aussies together, and even an over-the-hill Hoad had too much for the others.

Hoad reached final of Australian Champ.s, Rosewall won it with great wins against Trabert and Hoad.

Hoad reached QFs at Wimbledon, Rosewall reached SFs.

Hoad did it to the Sfs of US Champ.s, Rosewall reached final and lost only to Trabert who had his best year.

Hoad was 6:1 in Davis Cup, Rosewall was 11:0.

Your conclusion: Hoad was better than Rosewall....

Click to expand...

Bobby, I am surprised that you forgot to contradict me again.
I hope that you will not be offended if I contradict you, either.
The 1955 Australian was played immediately after the 1954 Davis Cup final, which explains why Trabert was entered in the tournament in the first place. It was a severe anti-climax to the Cup final, and Trabert's only slam loss of the year. Hoad was still slumping.
The big match of the year was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV viewers, and the Vice-President of the U.S.A., Richard M. Nixon, to present the Cup. The very first color broadcast by NBC.
Hoad defeated Rosewall ON CLAY that year.

I know that Crawford was only one set away from completing the calendar Grand Slam, however, was he really better that Hans Nüsslein would won the World Pro Championship that year? Not saying you are wrong.....but were the amateurs really better than the Pro's at that point?

Click to expand...

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

Click to expand...

Who would you say would win in a match in 1933 - Tilden vs Crawford on a medium or fast surface or Nusslein vs Crawford on a slow surface?

Bobby, I am surprised that you forgot to contradict me again.
I hope that you will not be offended if I contradict you, either.
The 1955 Australian was played immediately after the 1954 Davis Cup final, which explains why Trabert was entered in the tournament in the first place. It was a severe anti-climax to the Cup final, and Trabert's only slam loss of the year. Hoad was still slumping.
The big match of the year was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV viewers, and the Vice-President of the U.S.A., Richard M. Nixon, to present the Cup. The very first color broadcast by NBC.
Hoad defeated Rosewall ON CLAY that year.

Click to expand...

Dan, Where have I forgotten to contradict you?? I use to contradict you almost every time (maybe too often for some...).

Your rankings are the worst I have ever seen (and I have seen some strange ones like Hopman's who ranked Emerson ahead of Rosewall).

Your new "arguments" are as absurd as all of your's. You don't have any reasonable answers to my arguments and to the facts and to the experts...

Instead of studying the facts you are citing Richard Nixon and such stuff.

It was very close at that time. Bill Tilden and Hans Nusslein were the first professional players to be neck and neck with the top amateur players. If forced to make a choice for the best male player of 1933, I pick Jack Crawford. He was really unfortunate to lose that final and a big place in tennis history.

Click to expand...

He lost because his friends mistakenly thought he would benefit from alcoholic beverages (he had minor asthma), and laced his drinks with alcohol. By the end of the third set he was unwittingly drunk and unable to play.
If they had left him alone, he would have won.

Dan, Where have I forgotten to contradict you?? I use to contradict you almost every time (maybe too often for some...).

Your rankings are the worst I have ever seen (and I have seen some strange ones like Hopman's who ranked Emerson ahead of Rosewall).

Your new "arguments" are as absurd as all of your's. You don't have any reasonable answers to my arguments and to the facts and to the experts...

Instead of studying the facts you are citing Richard Nixon and such stuff.

Shame on you!

Click to expand...

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

Click to expand...

People seem to forget that the Davis Cup DWARFED all other tennis events in the period 1946 to 1967. The players tried to peak for that event, and personal rankings reflected Davis Cup success.

Citing Richard Nixon's PRESENCE as U.S. Vice-President to show how BIG and IMPORTANT the match was, with OVER !0 MILLION viewers. The biggest match of the year and the decade in terms of audience. This gives it greater weight.

Click to expand...

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

Click to expand...

You've got it backwards. If an event is super-important, the Queen or the Vice-President might show up to make it a public event.
The importance of the event makes it worthwhile for the public official to be there.
Also, NBC recognized the importance of the 1955 Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert by making it their first-ever color broadcast, which attracted over 10 million viewers in the U.S.A., the first ever mass TV audience for tennis. That shows how tennis was on the map.

So I guess the Queens prescence at Wimbledon in 1977 makes Virginia Wade's win there the most important match of 1977 in womens tennis as well then eh?

I didn't realize the prescence of a politician somehow made one match trump a years worth of difference otherwise.

Click to expand...

The Queen also showed up for the 1957 Wimbledon final where Hoad dominated Cooper, and the 1962 final where Laver dominated Mulligan. Two special players.
In general, the Queen does not attend Wimbledon, unlike other major sporting events. Probably because her own father played men's doubles at Wimbledon in the early 1920's, he asked the other players to show him no special favours, and he was beaten badly as a result. I guess the other players should not have followed his advice.

You've got it backwards. If an event is super-important, the Queen or the Vice-President might show up to make it a public event.
The importance of the event makes it worthwhile for the public official to be there.
Also, NBC recognized the importance of the 1955 Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert by making it their first-ever color broadcast, which attracted over 10 million viewers in the U.S.A., the first ever mass TV audience for tennis. That shows how tennis was on the map.

Click to expand...

The first NBC color broadcast ever was "The Colgate Comedy Hour" in 1953, followed by The Tournament of Roses Parade in 1954. Just another thing you are misrepresenting in your quest to make Hoad look better and better in your eyes.

The first NBC color broadcast ever was "The Colgate Comedy Hour" in 1953, followed by The Tournament of Roses Parade in 1954. Just another thing you are misrepresenting in your quest to make Hoad look better and better in your eyes.

Click to expand...

You have avoided the most salient points.
Actually, the Tournament of Roses was shown on only 21 stations, and was not a "sporting event", but a PARADE.
The first national network broadcast of a sporting event in color was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert.
This was a true measure of the progress tennis had made in the national consciousness as a result of the Hoad/Trabert Davis Cup matchups between 1953 and 1955.
Truly historic.

You have avoided the most salient points.
Actually, the Tournament of Roses was shown on only 21 stations, and was not a "sporting event", but a PARADE.
The first national network broadcast of a sporting event in color was the 1955 Davis Cup match between Hoad and Trabert.
This was a true measure of the progress tennis had made in the national consciousness as a result of the Hoad/Trabert Davis Cup matchups between 1953 and 1955.
Truly historic.

Click to expand...

You did not say first ever broadcast in color of a sporting event, you said "first ever color broadcast by NBC"there is a major difference between those 2 statements which I am sure you well know. You are just trying to save face because yet another one of your ascertains have been contradicted and proven wrong in this thread, whether you want to admit it or not.

Who cares whether the tournament of roses is a Parade or not? It was broadcast in color, which proves your claim wrong.

While it is quite clear you know a lot of the history surrounding the game of tennis you look at it through some of the most rose tinted glasses possible when it comes to your favorite players and the tone in which you address people who dare contradict is getting quite over the top and almost borders on trollish.